A. Interpretation – the Aff has to make a tangible increase
1. Because “public health” is so vague, dictionary definitions are insufficient – context is critical – our evidence takes your plan into account
Divya Murthy, J.D. Candidate, at American University, Washington College of Law, 2002
[“The Future of Compulsory Licensing: Deciphering the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health,” American University International Law Review, 17 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1299, Lexis] Rein
Applying the principles outlined in VCLT Article 31(1), the Panel would first look at the "ordinary" meaning of the term "public health." 167 Although the India-Mailbox AB failed to provide detailed guidance on this step, 168 the Panel in Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products ("Canada-Generic") indicated that the common dictionary definition would be an appropriate point of reference. 169 The dictionary definition of public health encompasses the health of the community generally. 170 Finding the dictionary definition to be vague and indefinite, a reasonable Panel would determine the term's ordinary meaning by looking at its context and reading it in light of the object and purpose of TRIPs. 171
2. Public health assistance acts directly on health needs – it deals with disease and sanitation
Public health assistance means health services (1) that are generally available to needy individuals residing in a State; (2) that receive funding from units of State or local government; and, (3) that are provided for the primary purpose of protecting the health of the general public, including, but not limited to, immunizations for immunizable diseases, testing and treatment for tuberculosis and sexually-transmitted diseases, and family planning services.
B. The plan does not act directly on public health, but with broader causes. The test here is to ask if the plan would make sense in a world without disease or not. Clearly it would.
C. Voting Issue
1. Effects – the change in patents is what results in assistance. It unlimits. If cases could take multiple steps to be topical there would be millions of actions one could take to eventually be topical. And it hurts negative ground – allows for too many affirmative advantage areas and solvency mechanism that can’t be predicted which prevents fair debate
2. Extra Topicality – they claim advantages off of revising the patent system, which is not a topical plank. This has to be a voting issue otherwise it’s a no risk option for the Aff and it gives Affs an incentive to put extra topical planks in their plan to waste our time
3. Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. The Aff interpretation sets no limits
Lawrence Gostin, Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Professor of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University, 2001 [“Public Health, Ethics, and Human Rights: A Tribute to the Late Jonathan Mann,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer, ebsco]
Scholars and practitioners have long been conflicted about the "reach" or domain of public health.[ 11] Some prefer a narrow focus on the proximal risk factors for injury and disease. Under this perspective, public health should identify risks or harms and intervene to prevent or ameliorate them. This has been the traditional role of public health, exercising discrete powers such as surveillance, infectious disease controls (e.g., screening, vaccination, partner notification, and quarantine), and sanitary measures (e.g., safe food and drinking water). Others prefer a broad focus on the societal, cultural, and economic foundations of health. Under this perspective, public health should be more concerned with the underlying conditions that are associated with poor health.[ 12] For instance, the field of public health is ultimately interested in the equitable distribution of social and economic resources because social status, race, and wealth are important determinants of health.[ 13] This inclusive direction for public health is gaining popularity; consider how many of the federal government's health objectives for 2010 seek a reduction in health disparities.[ 14] Public health researchers are also venturing into areas far from their traditional expertise, including violence, war, homelessness, and discrimination.[ 15] The problem with an expansive view is that public health -- as a field, as a mandate -- becomes limitless, as almost everything human beings undertake affects public health. By this account, public and private activities across a wide spectrum are the work of public health. To many, this all-inclusive notion of public health is counterproductive. First, by defining itself so widely, the field lacks precision. Public health becomes an all-embracing enterprise bonded only by the common value of societal well-being. Second, by adopting such a broad array of behavioral, social, physical, and environmental interventions, it lacks a discrete expertise. The public health professions consequently incorporate a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., occupational health, health education, epidemiology, and nursing) with different skills and functions. Finally, by espousing controversial issues of economic redistribution and social restructuring, the field becomes highly political. While public health practitioners like to conceive of their field as a positivistic discipline that stresses the importance of science and technique, the field is, in reality, imbued with values and influenced by interest-group politics.
A. Interpretation – the Aff has to make a tangible increase
1. Because “public health” is so vague, dictionary definitions are insufficient – context is critical – our evidence takes your plan into account
Divya Murthy, J.D. Candidate, at American University, Washington College of Law, 2002
[“The Future of Compulsory Licensing: Deciphering the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health,” American University International Law Review, 17 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 1299, Lexis] Rein
Applying the principles outlined in VCLT Article 31(1), the Panel would first look at the "ordinary" meaning of the term "public health." 167 Although the India-Mailbox AB failed to provide detailed guidance on this step, 168 the Panel in Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products ("Canada-Generic") indicated that the common dictionary definition would be an appropriate point of reference. 169 The dictionary definition of public health encompasses the health of the community generally. 170 Finding the dictionary definition to be vague and indefinite, a reasonable Panel would determine the term's ordinary meaning by looking at its context and reading it in light of the object and purpose of TRIPs. 171
2. Public health assistance acts directly on health needs – it deals with disease and sanitation
Code of Federal Regulations, 2006
[Title 45, Volume 2, 45CFR402.2, 10/1,
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13nov20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/45cfr402.2.htm]
Public health assistance means health services (1) that are generally available to needy individuals residing in a State; (2) that receive funding from units of State or local government; and, (3) that are provided for the primary purpose of protecting the health of the general public, including, but not limited to, immunizations for immunizable diseases, testing and treatment for tuberculosis and sexually-transmitted diseases, and family planning services.
B. The plan does not act directly on public health, but with broader causes. The test here is to ask if the plan would make sense in a world without disease or not. Clearly it would.
C. Voting Issue
1. Effects – the change in patents is what results in assistance. It unlimits. If cases could take multiple steps to be topical there would be millions of actions one could take to eventually be topical. And it hurts negative ground – allows for too many affirmative advantage areas and solvency mechanism that can’t be predicted which prevents fair debate
2. Extra Topicality – they claim advantages off of revising the patent system, which is not a topical plank. This has to be a voting issue otherwise it’s a no risk option for the Aff and it gives Affs an incentive to put extra topical planks in their plan to waste our time
3. Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. The Aff interpretation sets no limits
Lawrence Gostin, Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Professor of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University, 2001
[“Public Health, Ethics, and Human Rights: A Tribute to the Late Jonathan Mann,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Summer, ebsco]
Scholars and practitioners have long been conflicted about the "reach" or domain of public health.[ 11] Some prefer a narrow focus on the proximal risk factors for injury and disease. Under this perspective, public health should identify risks or harms and intervene to prevent or ameliorate them. This has been the traditional role of public health, exercising discrete powers such as surveillance, infectious disease controls (e.g., screening, vaccination, partner notification, and quarantine), and sanitary measures (e.g., safe food and drinking water). Others prefer a broad focus on the societal, cultural, and economic foundations of health. Under this perspective, public health should be more concerned with the underlying conditions that are associated with poor health.[ 12] For instance, the field of public health is ultimately interested in the equitable distribution of social and economic resources because social status, race, and wealth are important determinants of health.[ 13] This inclusive direction for public health is gaining popularity; consider how many of the federal government's health objectives for 2010 seek a reduction in health disparities.[ 14] Public health researchers are also venturing into areas far from their traditional expertise, including violence, war, homelessness, and discrimination.[ 15] The problem with an expansive view is that public health -- as a field, as a mandate -- becomes limitless, as almost everything human beings undertake affects public health. By this account, public and private activities across a wide spectrum are the work of public health. To many, this all-inclusive notion of public health is counterproductive. First, by defining itself so widely, the field lacks precision. Public health becomes an all-embracing enterprise bonded only by the common value of societal well-being. Second, by adopting such a broad array of behavioral, social, physical, and environmental interventions, it lacks a discrete expertise. The public health professions consequently incorporate a wide variety of disciplines (e.g., occupational health, health education, epidemiology, and nursing) with different skills and functions. Finally, by espousing controversial issues of economic redistribution and social restructuring, the field becomes highly political. While public health practitioners like to conceive of their field as a positivistic discipline that stresses the importance of science and technique, the field is, in reality, imbued with values and influenced by interest-group politics.